--- title: "Great Expectations: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/great-expectations/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/great-expectations" critics_score: 83 critics_reviews: 10 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Great Expectations (1946): what the critics said Critics' score 83 from 10 reviews: 9 positive, 1 mixed, 0 negative. Most critics regard this as the Dickens adaptation against which the others are measured. The praise clusters around Lean’s handling of the novel: a screenplay that cuts the book down without losing its shape, and a monochrome look that several reviewers describe as closer to a ghost story than a costume drama. The opening graveyard scene and Miss Havisham’s decaying house are singled out again and again, and the childhood passages are widely held to be the strongest. John Mills and Alec Guinness draw particular mention. The reservations are few but consistent. Variety, writing at the time, finds the film beautiful but short on feeling, with Estella in particular under-drawn, and Slant Magazine, some sixty years later, makes a similar case, calling it bloodless next to the novel and objecting to the ending. The Guardian raises a casting problem while otherwise admiring it. The spread is narrow; nine of the ten reviews are positive. ## Radio Times — Andrew Collins Rating 5/5. This black-and-white adaptation is one of David Lean's early masterpieces and a carefully pruned version that retains the magical Dickens spirit. It features superlative film-making from one of Britain's greatest directors, with magnificent visuals that earned Oscars for cinematography and design. [Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-o56rb1/great-expectations/) ## Empire — David Parkinson Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. The screenplay is a model of judicious pruning and compression that retains the story's intrigue and Dickens spirit. It remains the definitive version of the atmospheric classic, with standout performances and technical achievements. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/great-expectations-2-review/) ## Los Angeles Times — Michael Wilmington Rating ****. 29 April 1988. The critic hails it as generally regarded as the best of the Dickens movies, with a gleam, polish and rightness, ranking it among Lean’s best works alongside Lawrence of Arabia and Brief Encounter. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-04-29-ca-2219-story.html) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 22 August 1999. Lean’s adaptation succeeds in bringing Dickens’ classic set-pieces vividly to life on screen without clashing with readers’ mental images. The gothic atmosphere of Miss Havisham’s mansion and the macabre elements are singled out for particular praise. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-great-expectations-1946) ## The Guardian — Philip French Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 2 February 2007. The critic calls Lean's 1946 film a brilliant adaptation that tellingly dramatises childhood trauma in luminous monochrome, often like the greatest nightmarish ghost story. He praises the fluent story, beautiful cinematography and John Mills's performance as Pip, while noting one casting issue, and deems the digitally restored reissue unmissable. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2007/feb/02/drama.periodandhistorical1) ## The New York Times — Bosley Crowther Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 23 May 1947. The critic calls it a perfect motion picture that does justice to Dickens, capturing the tale's warmth, surprise, and vivid characters through sensitive direction and acting. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/1947/05/23/archives/great-expectations-in-which-british-producers-do-very-well-by.html) ## The New Yorker — John McCarten Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 24 May 1947. The film follows the novel closely with felicitous results and makes the story more plausible than the book in places. The opening graveyard and child scenes are the strongest, with praise for the handling of youthful innocence and convincing period detail. [Read the review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1947/05/31/1947-05-31-056-tny-cards-000025212) ## Slant Magazine — Vadim Rizov Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 15 September 2008. The critic calls the film the great Dickens adaptation and flawless filmmaking overall, though finds it somewhat bloodless compared to the book and notes the ending as a mistake. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/david-lean-x-4/) ## Variety — Variety Staff Fi1m's normalised score 50/100 (inferred from the text). 31 December 1945. The adaptation is faithful and vividly realizes the period and characters, but the result is beautiful yet lacks heart and emotional depth. Secondary characters are the most credible while leads like Estella feel under-realized. [Read the review](https://variety.com/1945/film/reviews/great-expectations-5-1200414755/) ## Eye for Film — Merlin Harries Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 20 September 2007. The critic praises David Lean’s adaptation as one of the most successful of Dickens' novel, highlighting its accentuation of human drama and social commentary on class divide. The cast, especially Alec Guinness, and the story's enduring appeal are singled out positively. [Read the review](http://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/great-expectations-film-review-by-merlin-harries) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/great-expectations.md